Has Professional Philosophy Been Corrupted by Logical Fallacies?

[PeteJ]

I don’t think it’s so much that Consciousness and Reality are the “same” phenomenon, but more that they are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance, and that neither one could exist independent of the other in any meaningful or logical context.

No offense, but what you think is not relevant. It's what you can prove that is relevant.

The idea there is something 'more' fundamental than Reality seems very odd to me.

[seeds]

I don’t think it’s so much that Consciousness and Reality are the “same” phenomenon, but more that they are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance, and that neither one could exist independent of the other in any meaningful or logical context.

No offense, but what you think is not relevant. It's what you can prove that is relevant.

The idea there is something 'more' fundamental than Reality seems very odd to me.

Define "Reality."

[Skepdick]

It's the theory that the Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. A.k.a. the Perennial philosophy.

It's surely about time someone falsified it. But how many philosophers of the Academy know it well enough to even try?

It's the same point of departure as any monist metaphysic.

Christianity is a monist metaphysic. There's nothing new about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

Enter Philosophistry where you get to disagree about anything and everything in pursuit of "being different", but really - it's just the philosophical process of continuing re-description: saying the same thing using different words. It's a distinction in nomenclature without a difference in practice.

Which is what you are doing by calling it "perennial philosophy"...

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought that was a religious theory

It's a fundamental theory. As such it has implications for physics, metaphysics, religion, psychology and just about everything else.

Those who think it is a 'religious' theory and thus nothing to do with science or philosophy just need to read a book about it.

My complaint is that nobody ever bothers to explain what is wrong with it, yet many philosophers feel able to write whole books about philosophy and consciousness that ignore it. This is not professional conduct,

In my view it 'stealing the keys to knowledge' much as Jesus accuses the Pharisees.

That doesn't seem like a 'no' to it being a religious theory, it seems more like a 'yes but'.

[seeds]

I don’t think it’s so much that Consciousness and Reality are the “same” phenomenon, but more that they are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance, and that neither one could exist independent of the other in any meaningful or logical context.

No offense, but what you think is not relevant. It's what you can prove that is relevant.

The idea there is something 'more' fundamental than Reality seems very odd to me.

Define "Reality."

Furthermore, while you are attempting to define what you mean by “Reality,” please offer a suggestion as to how anyone can “prove” anything when it comes to philosophical questions?

I mean, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can be proven (and only tentatively to one’s self, btw) is the existence of the Cartesian “I Am.”

With that being said, how about you prove that Consciousness and Reality...

(which, btw, seeing how “Consciousness” is an aspect of “Reality,” seems like a strange thing to pose as two contrasting ideas**)

...are not the same phenomenon.

**(Posing consciousness [mind] against matter, yes. But posing consciousness against “reality” makes no sense to me.)
_______

[Advocate]

[quote=seeds post_id=474465 time=1601914605 user_id=12576]
[quote=seeds post_id=474459 time=1601910792 user_id=12576]
[quote=PeteJ post_id=474457 time=1601910457 user_id=11479]


No offense, but what you think is not relevant. It's what you can prove that is relevant.

The idea there is something 'more' fundamental than Reality seems very odd to me.
[/quote]
Define "Reality."[/quote]
Furthermore, while you are attempting to define what you mean by “Reality,” please offer a suggestion as to how anyone can “prove” anything when it comes to philosophical questions?

I mean, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can be proven (and only tentatively to one’s self, btw) is the existence of the Cartesian “I Am.”

With that being said, how about you [b][i]prove[/i][/b] that Consciousness and Reality...

[i](which, btw, seeing how “Consciousness” is an aspect of “Reality,” seems like a strange thing to pose as two contrasting ideas**) [/i]

...are [b][i]not[/i][/b] the same phenomenon.

[i]**(Posing consciousness [mind] against matter, yes. But posing consciousness against “reality” makes no sense to me.)[/i]
_______
[/quote]

Consciousness is a subset of reality. Reality is consensus experience. The only way we access reality is through our awareness, which is synonymous with consciousness. Philosophical questions can be answered like any other, because the answer is that which is certain Enough. Nothing is ever completely certain except experience itself.

[Atla]

That seems a bit teasy. What is this old theory?

It's the theory that the Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. A.k.a. the Perennial philosophy.

It's surely about time someone falsified it. But how many philosophers of the Academy know it well enough to even try?

I thought that was a religious theory

According to Occam's razor, it's a fact unless proven otherwise.

The 'religious' theory is that consciousness and reality aren't the same phenomenon. It's a batshit crazy theory actually, and the entire Western world believes in it.

[Atla]

I feel that if the profession wants to stem the flow of criticism then it must falsify the Perennial philosophy. If it cannot do this, doesn't even bother to try and cannot find an alternative theory that works then we might as well ignore it. Complete waste of time.

I think some of them suspect what would happen, that's why don't attempt it.

Not only would they fail, their attempt would backfire so badly, Western philosophy could get demolished for good. And in the newly adopted Perennial philosophy, like 2/3 of all big philosophical problems would get auto-solved.
The shame would be the smaller problem, the bigger problem would be that a lot less philosophers would be needed. Most of them would lose their jobs, especially the ones who are only good at mental masturbation, but are otherwise unemployable.

So, it's simple, really: take on the Perennial philosophy -> who will pay the mortgage?

[seeds]

[......]

Consciousness is a subset of reality.

Agreed.

And isn’t that precisely what I implied when I stated that consciousness is an “aspect” (i.e., subset) of reality?

Reality is consensus experience.

Nonsense!

Reality - is what it is - regardless of our “consensus” experience of it (which might be the result of a mutually shared delusion).

The only way we access reality is through our awareness, which is synonymous with consciousness.

Agreed.

Philosophical questions can be answered like any other, because the answer is that which is certain Enough.

Unfortunately, “certain Enough” does not really answer philosophical questions.

In other words, “certain Enough” is nothing more than a pacifying acquiescence to something that is not necessarily the actual truth.

Nothing is ever completely certain except experience itself.

And if the experience is a delusion or hallucination, then what exactly is it that one is certain of?
_______

[Advocate]

>>Reality is consensus experience.[/quote]
Nonsense!

>Reality - is what it is - regardless of our “consensus” experience of it (which might be the result of a mutually shared delusion).

Actuality is what is regardless of our experience of it. Reality is specifically our experience of it. We can use the words however we want but this way clears up more and confuses less than your way. Almost everyone understands reality to be our experience. Only philosophers try to make it transcendent, which is impossible by definition.

>Unfortunately, “certain Enough” does not really answer philosophical questions.

>In other words, “certain Enough” is nothing more than a pacifying acquiescence to something that is not necessarily the actual truth.

I'm afraid certain enough is the necessary and sufficient answer to any question. If you want more certain than enough, you're wasting your time because there's no additional benefit. Also, certain enough implies the importance of knowing what certain enough is in each case, which would prevent a lot of problems from occurring in the first place.

>And if the experience is a delusion or hallucination, then what exactly is it that one is certain of?

That's why certain enough is the only realistic answer. We can never be the kind of certain you want certain to be. Actuality is beyond us, but we still need a word to apply to our experience, and we already have one. Within Reality, certain enough is the only meaningful benchmark possible.

[Skepdick]

First he disagrees...

>>Reality is consensus experience.
Nonsense!

Then he goes and says the exact same thing as he just disagreed with, using different words.

Reality is specifically our experience of it.

Philosophy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[seeds]

First he disagrees...

>>Reality is consensus experience.
Nonsense!

Then he goes and says the exact same thing as he just disagreed with, using different words.

Reality is specifically our experience of it.

Philosophy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The problem is that Advocate butchers the quote system so badly that it is near impossible to decipher who is saying what. For I am the one who said "Nonsense!"
_______

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=474485 time=1601926359 user_id=17350]
First he disagrees...


[quote=Advocate post_id=474477 time=1601924233 user_id=15238]
>>Reality is consensus experience.
Nonsense!
[/quote]
Then he goes and says the exact same thing as he just disagreed with, using different words.

[quote=Advocate post_id=474477 time=1601924233 user_id=15238]
Reality is specifically our experience of it.
[/quote]

Philosophy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[/quote]

I wrote the two parts that agree with each other. You're really trying too hard.

The quotes system sucks. I always distinguish between levels of response.

[Skepdick]

The quotes system sucks. I always distinguish between levels of response.

Your system sucks worse.

[PeteJ]

That doesn't seem like a 'no' to it being a religious theory, it seems more like a 'yes but'.

It is an interpretation of QM and an explanation of religion and a solution for philosophy. Call it what you want.